rant

Everywhere I go in my city I see people. Everywhere. Hundreds and hundreds of people. All of them unknown to me. I travel on overcrowded buses and trains. I shop in busy supermarkets. I go to cafes, to bars, to offices. Everywhere I go I see more people. Most of my life outside my house is spent mingling with strangers. I see multitudes of faces. Young and old and the in-betweens. I see expressions of sadness and worry and bitterness etched on some; Joy and laughter written on others. I hear hundreds of voices meeting and mixing in foreign languages and native tongues. I see colours of skin that challenge any simple categories of black and white and yellow. I see clothes that reflect multitudes of personalities, religious beliefs and musical tastes. I smell food being prepared with herbs and spices that make my mouth water. Coriander, oregano, frying onions and garlic mixed with the scent of jasmine that grows everywhere.

What I don't see is invading hordes of mud people, savages and rats. I do not see villains and murderers and terrorists on every street corner. I do not feel sick when I smell curry or wonton soup. I do not see chinks and pakis and niggers and fags and greedy jews. I do not see uppity women and lesbos out to get me. I do not see marauding arabs and dirty muslims. I do not see spics and gypos and darkies and abos and half castes. I do not see threats and violations in the eyes of every stranger.

My world is vastly different to many. I live in a world where my heritage and upbringing has given me an insight into difference. I can look into someone else's eyes and see myself because I know who I am. I am free to make friendships with people different to me because I trust that people have good intentions. I am able to speak about my own experiences without insulting entire races/religions because I see people and not categories. I am able to live in a way most people would want to because I do not judge on the basis of arbitrary details like height or weight or colour.

I can try and walk a mile in someone else's shoes because I feel safe in my own.

I wrote this for Blog against Racism Day (December 1st) and to counter some of the hateful words that have been written about me and others who don't happen to fit into the white male mould. We "others" cannot stop racism alone. We can shout about it, scream about it, fight it, kick it, ignore it or lie down and let it run us down. Stamping out racism is going to take a commitment from each and everyone of us, and that means everyone; especially those who DON"T have to think about it everyday.

December 1st. Today is the day. I hope you will all take part. Post your words, poetry, quotes or thoughts for Blog against Racism Day over at my other blog

As Reid's votes on virulently anti-choice (and anti-labor, anti-environment) judges shows, it's better to have a Democrat than a Republican hold any seat in Congress. Better, that is, for those of us who care about the broad palette of progressive issues. That doesn't mean that NARAL is forced to support Casey. Neutrality is an option.

Why he thinks one senator's actions are proof of anything is a mystery, especially given all the Democrats who advocate TRAP laws. It's like he doesn't really care, but rather is trying to rationalize his Democrats-right-or-wrong worldview for those of us who fancy our constitutional rights and don't cotton to gang colors logic. Why he repeatedly harps on NARAL, who has marginal influence at best on Democratic Party politics these days -- especially when he likes to advocate for the "big tent" -- who knows?

Here's the news flash: pro-choice is the big tent.

It's the anti-choice folks that Kos and friends are pushing who are against the big tent. It is the anti-choice folks who say that everyone must obey their views. It's the anti-choice folks who push to criminalize women's reproductive rights. It's the anti-choice folks who are the intolerant ones.

But to hear Kos and others, you'd think that the anti-choice folks were just trundling along, just minding their own business, and we big meanie pro-choice folks with our "pet cause" and "litmus tests" are out to impose our will on everyone, when just the opposite is the case.

Pro-choice means tolerance for all views. Pro-choice means it's not the government's place to decide. The pro-choice tent is big, already including people who are anti-abortion. It's the anti-choice people who want to kick out the pro-choice folks -- not just out of the Party, but out of the very fabric of our society. The anti-choice people want the government to seize control of wombs and institute reproduction controls that violate the woman's body, and thus her very fundamental constitutional rights of equal protection under the law.

Let's be clear: When Kos and other self-proclaimed "Democrats" attack pro-choice folks, they are carrying water for the right wing, whether they mean to or not, and are undercutting the very foundation of progressive values that have been at the heart of Democrat politics for decades. This isn't about "pet causes" but about fundamental human rights, and to argue that the Democrats must make room for people who don't believe in fundamental human rights for all Americans, in the name of "big tent" politics, is self-contradictory and patently absurd.

The radicals pushing their dominionist agenda on America are bad enough. We don't need our rights to be attacked from so-called allies. Nor do we need our strongest advocates to be fragged right when the battle is turning against us. This is war, and the very fundamental human rights of women are at stake. Now is not the time to start offering up constituents as bargaining chips to gain territory.

I tuned into HBO's new series, Rome, hoping that it might fill the void in my TV viewing that the recently-ended Six Feet Under left. I was hopeful for this new series, but I soon turned off, long before I switched off.

"I, Claudius" it ain't...

This program exists to stroke male egos and remind them of a time when they could be all-powerful, especially with regards to women. It will, of course, be compared to the BBC's production of Robert Graves' "I, Claudius", which casts a very long shadow, even though it aired in the U.S. on PBS'Masterpiece Theatresome 27 years ago. HBO consciously plays upon the screen-burn that "I, Claudius" left on the America's collective memory by casting British actors, which creates an air of high art and legitimacy upon the series. (Whenever Hollywood feels wanting in the acting department, it imports British actors.) HBO has positioned the "Rome" series as high entertainment - a majestic, sweeping historical series with ambitions to match, or even surpass, the much-lauded "Six Feet Under", "The Sopranos" and "Deadwood".

But - surprisingly - Rome's extravagant, and no doubt costly, production is hindered by the very elements HBO thought would recommend it. The ability to shoot on location de-emphasizes characterization. There are many "gee-wiz, look at all this historical reality!" type shots. These are all well and good, but there had better be a well-written script to back up the pretty scenes, and in Rome's case, there isn't.

Re-telling the same tired old Tales

What I was particularly non-plussed about was the way women were portrayed. Yes, I know that women were very much a subordinated group in ancient Rome. Yes, I understand that any attempt at a realistic portrayal of women in Rome would reflect their oppressed status. But I didn't think that the cultural conditions of Rome warranted:

not one, not two, but three different naked women in one episode, all of whom were young and very skinny;

one woman to position herself in the "doggie" style on a bed for her much older soon-to-be husband to have sex with;

a long lingering shot of a woman's breast, with large erect nipple, who is about to breast-feed her baby;

Concerning the first item: while I don't object to sex scenes, they were so obviously scripted and directed from a male point of view, that these scenes looked scripted in solely for voyeuristic purposes. And not only were they from a male point of view, catering to a male audience, but they were also tailored to modern-day tastes (gee, the women just happened to be skinny, the current ideal for women today). Moreover, in these scenes, the audience is given very little view of their bodies: the men lay on their backs in bed, surveying (as we are meant to direct our attention) the naked women moving on top. The focus is clearly on the heaving, moving bodies of the naked females.

Concerning the second item: there's nothing inherently wrong with the "doggie style" per se, but the way in which it unfolded was coded in a particularly gross and offensive way. There was a power imbalance between the two characters (one a relatively powerless, inexperienced young women, of high birth, and a much older, much more powerful male character). And then there was the way it unfolded on-screen: we cut from some dialogue between the two very quickly to a shot of her (reluctantly) moving towards the bed, then quickly cut to her form completely naked and frozen in a passive position waiting for the male character to "happen" to her. How humiliating is that? How is that not meant to degrade her, and how are women viewers supposed to feel watching this?

Concerning the third item: again, there's nothing wrong or offensive about showing a character breast-feeding, and it was warranted in the storyline. (Two women discuss the impending war; one is obviously very worried about the effect war will have on her baby.) But the way it was shot was obviously voyeuristic and meant to gratify hetero male eyes: a long, slow shot of her naked (rather perfect, of course!) petite breast, with the baby's head some ways away so as not to disrupt our view of her breast, and a long (not really needed) view of it before the baby's head is finally slowly brought forward to suckle. The nipple is quite erect and quite prominent (which may or may not be realistic, or may just be for erotic purposes).

The other objection I have is the way men talk and treat women. Again - yes, I understand that Rome was a rigid and extreme patriarchy. I understand that men would've spoken in dismissive and hateful terms about women. But it's being trotted out in a way so that the viewers can get off on it. There's a lot of "Do as I say, woman!" type stuff going on, and women being mean and nasty to each other in order to curry favor with the male characters, who hold all the power. There's also some infantilization of women (one young woman yells the cliche line "I hate you!" - what a tired, trite cliche that is of an emotional and powerless woman).

At least "I, Claudius" had the Machiavellian character of Livia, who schemed, killed, maneuvered, and manipulated. She was a formidable character and reeked much havoc, until she was sussed out in the end. In HBO's "Rome", there are no particularly good female characters.

And why did HBO choose to commission a new series based on a historical portrayal of Rome, anyways? Out of all the story ideas they could've run with, why do a series on Rome? I propose that HBO was drawn to the Rome concept because it portrayed a time when men could be all-powerful and had much higher social status than women; when women led dull lives confined to domestic settings, when men did all the interesting things and things of importance, and when men could be ultra-masculine and brutally violent. What a comforting world for the modern-day male who may dislike the advances women have made to step into; what soothing balm "Rome" offers this male viewer, who must deal with women in the workplace and at home who demand equality and respect. What misogyny HBO still has to peddle. And what better things I have to do with my time than watch HBO's "Rome". But then, I doubt I am the target audience HBO is courting with "Rome".

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.

Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."

[snip]

The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.

The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need."

This is shaping up to be far far worse than 9/11. How many thousands dead? How many buildings erased from the surface of the earth? And we can't just go at attack another country to feel like we're doing something. --Not that would could if we wanted to, given how overextended our military is already.

And let's face it. Nobody wants to say it. But look at the people who weren't considered when the evacuation plan of "Get into your SUV and drive away, fast!" was put into action....

Look at those faces.

Those are Americans. They are our people. Our blood. The storm has long passed. They are still there, without food, without water, without shelter. We have to ask ourselves why.

We'll help them release -er- relief efforts. Yeah. And we apperciate the hard workers for their dedication.

And we're very concerned about the oil refineries and delivery of product to markets around the country. Some refineries have shut down and so we need to really bend some rules so we can pipe more gas from here to there. Don't buy gas if you don't need to. And we're on top of the gas situation. We have the private sector working on this. And we want you to know that we're really concerned about gas product getting to markets around the country.

Oh, and as for the survivors, my daddy and that president who remains popular are going to pass the hat to help. We'll be able to help these people, as long as you people open your wallets. You know, we'd take care of it, the government as a role to play, but it's really up to you.

Thank you.

Message: Don't talk about the people dying, starving, ill, unsheltered, living on the sidewalks, sitting in sewage. Get worried about gas. Be afraid. As a matter fact, you'd better stop looking at those miserable souls in New Orleans you see on television and run out and tank up your SUV right now.

Conclusion: Our president sure is an oil man. All his fumbling and stumbling stopped when he slipped right into the boardroom report.

What to do:give to the Red Cross, because our government can't afford it, we're too busy spending $9 million an hour in Iraq.